Dear Mr. Gordo,did the Buddha teach the higher teaching (if there is a higher or lower) in a relative way? Are there any disciples of the Buddha, how where taught in a relative way - are there some Mahayana Sutras (which could be refered to "by the Buddha taught") which are relative?

Or does it simply mean, if there is no level of attainment, it makes no sense to walk this way?

The cause of the OP was your statement (better to stay relative...), and I still try to find out if I do understand something wrong. And I am no and never serious, I dont like to lose my beautiful image

Actually you are right, that was just a conclusion of mine (might it be relative)

You are conflating the ultimate with the relative, and seem attached to the ultimate. If you forget the relative, you may step out into the street and get hit by car that lacks inherent self-existence.

which was originated in "Racism in Buddhism"

Looks like I am caught in a loop. Maybe I don't have the view.

But we still have no answers to to questions in the original topic post (from a relative view)

Thanks for sharing,That would be a possibility for those how do not abstain from taking and those who like interpretations. What do you mean to the questions of the original post? Or is there a vow to abstain from freely giving?

Hanzze wrote:Mahayana is the a path of involvement in a ultimate way or the path of involvement in a relative way. Or does it not seek any middle? Maybe there is no ultimate middle?

Whatever "Mahayana" arises in your mind ...

Therefore then, Subhuti, the Bodhi-being, the great being, after he has got rid of allperceptions, should raise his thought to the utmost, right and perfect enlightenment. He should produce a thought which is unsupported by forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or mindobjects, unsupported by dharma, unsupported by no-dharma, unsupported by anything. And why? All supports have actually no support.